Editorial Malpractice?
This entry was posted on 9/5/2006 4:36 PM and is filed under media.
Over the past few years it has become evident that the media spends less and less space relative to their journalistic responsibilities but rather tend to simply discuss a topic without providing perspective or credentials. The following is an example which I have already submitted to the editors of Network World.
Your article "guide to security", "The six worst security mistakes and
how to avoid making them", page 50, 8/26/06, is a classic example of
modern journalism which often states facts but provides no provable
background supporting data. This is, as a bare minimum, a dereliction
of editorial responsibility. The article launches immediately into
each of the "six worst security mistakes" rather than providing the
editorial research that resulted in determining the finite number of
six. Perhaps it should be five, ten or twenty-five! Admidtedly, you
provided a very brief introduction in the table of contents indicating
that you had "asked the top security consultants". Which security
consultants? The same six that contributed to the article?
To
make matters worse your failure to document the credentials of your
"gurus" makes one wonder how strong their credentials are. Segements
consuming many column inches of material deserve at least one column
inch or more of background material regarding each of the authors. To
be fair, all of your "gurus" are credible, but why is it necessary for
the reader to research such information. Are we to take the word of
Network World that you have carefully vetted the topic and its authors
without any evidence? As an information security professional for more
than 35 years, I learned long ago that source material must be
validated and corroborated.
While the information has been
corroborated as to the source, it has not been validated as the reader
has no basis for understanding how you came up with the magic number of
six other than your brief introductory comment in the table of
contents. Publishing such an article without delivery of the
appropriate editorial background and author credentials is editorial
malpractice.
Should your experience be similar, perhaps a letter or two would help.
